4.) Lab 112_ Newton's Second Law

Lab 112: Newton’s Second Law A. Introduction: Theory & Objectives 1.)Newton’s Second Law: F = ma This law states how acceleration and in turn velocity is dependent on the force acting a certain object and the object mass. These are the two determining factors for the object’s motion because a set external force must be applied to initiate motion, and the object will react to a degree of that force according to its own resistance and inertia. The acceleration of an object and the force applied can be monitored by splitting them into vertical and horizontal components as velocity. Furthermore, the force of an object down a ramp can be estimated and calculated with the formula: mgsin θ , and then consequently would be gsin θ . In this lab, we will be studying and analyzing the correlation between mass, acceleration and force on all types of inclined surfaces. B. Experimental Procedure Part 1 - 1. Measure the total mass of the glider with all of its components, and also a mass to double check its mass for acceptance calculations later. 2. Note the distances between individual photgates as well. 3. Connect the 850 Universal Interface with the computer, and also plug in the AC power adapter. 4. With the set parameters of length and distance, release the glider. 5. Then, add an equal mass to both sides, and release the glider while recording. 6. Finally repeat by adding one more additional mass to either side, and record all the values. 7. With the same length, distance and weight conditions, calculate the theoretical acceleration, velocity and time. Part 2- 1. Then angle the air track, by placing the changing block under it. Make note of the incline angle with the gravitational protractor. 2. Repeat releasing the glider down the track while recording with the three various glider mass scenarios as part 1.

3. With the same length, distance and weight conditions, calculate the theoretical acceleration, velocity and time. C. Results: Data & Calculations m = .04 kg M = .20584 kg X o = .61 m L = .42 m 1.) Table 1 - *First row is theoretical. Glider Mass Hanging Mass Acceleration Time for d = L Gate 1 Velocity Gate 2 Velocity M g .04 1.5945 0.2620 1.3947 1.8124 M g .04 1.5046 .2729 1.3821 1.7927 M g + 2M i .04 1.1322 0.3108 1.1753 1.5272 M g + 2M i .04 1.0617 .3207 1.1796 1.5201 M g + 4M i .04 .87766 0.3530 1.0348 1.3446 M g + 4M i .04 0.83819 .3634 1.0393 1.3439 2.) Table 2 - *First row is theoretical. θ = 5 o degrees Glider Mass Hanging Mass Acceleration Time for d = L Gate 1 Velocity Gate 2 Velocity M g .04 .87938 0.3526 1.0358 1.3459 M g .04 0.97207 .3401 1.1118 1.4424 M g + 2M i .04 .37671 0.5388 .67793 .88092 M g + 2M i .04 0.49566 .4719 .8033 1.0372 M g + 4M i .04 .10003 1.046 .34934 .45394 M g + 4M i .04 0.23702 .6835 .5535 .7155 Calculations for finding the Experimental Acceleration: V f = V i + at (Gate 2 Velocity) = (Gate 1 Velocity) + a(Time for distance L)

2.) We are assuming that the table is leveled to measure the incline angle. How big would the acceleration error be if the table top is at the angle of 1 degree only (+/- 1 degree)? I think if there was incline with the table itself both of our calculations for table 1 and table 2 would eb askew. I think they would be askew by a lot even if it was by 1 degree, because our overall angle itself is only 5 degrees. However, in our case, I don't think there is an inherent incline in the table itself because our calculations for table 1 were pretty accurate. I think we just measured angle wrong for table 2. 3.) Error Analysis: I think we had one big error with our calculations for table 2. I think like our previous labs, we measured the angle wrong. The gravitational protractor, I feel like, is rather an inductor for our labs. We have been consistently getting errors with angle involved labs. I think because of that our experimental values were so off. E. Conclusion of Experiment In this experiment, I was able to solidify my understanding on the inversely proportional relationship between mass and acceleration. We also understood how ramps can influence this relationship, and how equations like mgsin θ were derived. To add, despite our huge errors, we were able to draw connections about the concept because we were retracing our steps to find the errors in our experiments. I think this type of error analysis helped us understand the theory and background more than anything.